His previous approval level of 38% seem to hint at his Republican-ness. Besides, it wasn’t that long ago that Pete Wilson was governor of California (he was elected and re-elected, ending his term of office in '99).
If he develops real stances on issues (that are anywhere from moderate to liberal), I like him.
Democrats need to become more pragmatic. Here’s a guy who can win in the South, win in the ‘blue’ states, and has plenty to criticize the Republicans about (especially given the budget situation he turned around).
If he comes out with real stances, he’s the answer to all the Republicans who claimed, “I didn’t want to vote for Bush but you gave me no alternative.”
I don’t have much to go on from his supporters. I’ve got an open mind, let’s see how he develops if and when he runs.
If you think Hillary has it in the bag, think again. Think hawk. Think Iraqi disaster. In two more years, I don’t think being a rabid pro-war Dem is going to play well in the Iowa caucuses. In fact, I think she’ll get her tush handed to her. To win in 2008, I think it will be imperative to NOT have voted for or supported this war.
So, what was Warner’s position on the war?
(Not that, as a governor, he was required to have one.)
He might have been saying that it’s a plus that Warner doesn’t have any pro-war votes on the record, not that he was specifically anti-war.
I did find that Warner is opposed to setting a ‘timetable’ for withdrawal.
Some boilerplate by Warner on Iraq. Not really that informative.
Iraq is a difficult issue. If the Dem’s say “let’s get out now” that could cost them a lot of votes, even with people who are dissapointed with Bush’s handling of Iraq and have come to regret going in in the first place. On the other hand, if they say “Let’s get out only after there is a stable Iraq” they’re going to have to come up with a strategy to create a stable Iraq that is clearly better than Bush’s. Easier said than done.
Here’s where I got the quote from. It’s a transcript from “Face the Nation.” PDF!
He appears better than the last 2 candidates for President*. That alone would make me consider him. As usual I will wait to see who is running.
Jim
- I mean Bush & Kerry
He wasn’t born an American. And the Constitution isn’t going to change anytime soon.
That’s the point. As governor, you can’t be held accountable for all those votes you cast as Senator. I don’t know what his position was, if he runs in 2008 I presume he’ll tell us what he’ll do with Iraq.
Whoa, whoa, WHOA. You’re telling me Arnold Schwarzenegger isn’t a natural born citizen as is required for presidential eligibility under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution?
Seriously though, I was merely using Arnold as an example of a Republican capable of winning California, since astorian said essentially that no Republican could win California.
And based on what Bush has been saying this week, Iraq is a problem he will bequeath to the next administration. :mad:
I like what I’ve heard about Warner so far. A friend who’s a relatively low-level Virginia civil servant thinks very highly of him, and is glad Kaine won office after him, to continue Warner’s work. Warner is a bit more conservative than me on some issues (especially gun control, which is hardly surprising in a Red State like Virginia), but he seems smart and capable. I certainly think he’d be more electable than Hillary, given her high negatives and the visceral dislike so many have for her. And Southern governors seem to be all we Democrats have been able to elect to the White House in the last thirty years.
It’s a loooooooooooooong time 'til Iowa and New Hampshire get the '08 campaign rolling, though…
Seems like an attractive possibility to me, too. I believe I would feel much better about our future with a Warner-Hagel contest next time, if it comes to that - it’s been way too long since I last thought I could say I’d still think we’d still be in good shape even if my preferred candidate lost.
Can the Virginians here predict what in Warner’s background the RNC/talkshow smear machine will find to work with as soon as they decide *he’*s the threat, not Hillary? We know how long it took them last time to realize Kerry would be the candidate, so maybe they’ve learned their lesson and will shoot their wad too early this time?
Fair disclosure: I worked for Tim Kaine’s election (Warner’s Lt. Gov. and now the present Gov. of VA) and Warner is my prime interest for who I’d like to work for in 2007, so I may be biased (though I’m choosing that direction based out of self-interest in wanting to back the winner early, so maybe not so biased). But I also came into contact with Warner and Warner’s people plenty of times behind the scenes, so I’m also better informed.
I like the guy. A lot. Both as a candidate for President and as a bunch of ideas. The themes he’s got going for him that I think will be perfect for 2008:
- Competance and Governance is what matters- This was what he really won through on in VA. “Let’s get stuff done, and do it right” was his rallying cry. This got many Republicans on his side without losing Dems. Warner appointed people he thought would be best for their jobs to his administration, including Republicans. Which means that:
- Partisanship takes a back seat to getting things done. Witness the current VA Republican House, a warren of nasty backbiting and paybacks for party slights, even within the party. The country as a whole is sick of this sort of thing. Warner is pretty bi-partisan. He’s the anti-Bush. It isn’t about payback and loyalty. It’s about what’s going to work.
- Taxes are not good things in and of themselves: in fact they are all other things equal bad. But we need to pay for what we need, and invest in what matters. Warner raised taxes in a red, highly anti-tax state, and he was still popular.
As a guy on his feet, he’s a powerful speaker. I saw him at a roast, and I don’t think he had prepared any real remarks: he didn’t know ahead of time who was going to be there or what they were going to say, and it was a bit of a surprise party. But he was devastingly witty in catscratching back at people’s roasting insults. The man is VERY smart and calculating. He helped put the first black governor EVER (and STILL ever, so far) in office.
If I had to put a short slogan on Warner to Dems thinking about the upcoming primaries, it would be that he sold liberal policy ideas to red staters, and actually won over enough of them to matter. No other candidate in the offing can really claim that.
Warner stumbling blocks are many, but they aren’t deep. For instance:
- he’s served one term as a Governor, that’s it. But he was remarkably successful at it, and Bush only ever served two terms in a Governorship that was far more of a figurehead position. HE got elected, and Republicans certainly didn’t gnash their teeth over that, so they’d be hypocrites to do so. Warner also has a long record of actual leadership and management: all pretty successful, as opposed to Bush. He’s quite the contrast.
-he’s got a horseface: yep. But it didn’t hurt him in VA. It’s the sort of thing that can be sort of endearing. It could play against him, but its hard to judge. He’s at least recognizeable: a HUGE man (abe lincoln huge) with a HUGE smile.
-Hillary is queen. But so is anti-Hillary. Hillary may have money and presumptive power, but she also represents everything old and stodgy and emptily-calculating about the Dems. Warner has 200mil in personal assets, lots of connections with rich people, and may be able to raise money. If anything, Hillary’s dominance hurts other mainstream Dems like Biden or Kerry that might otherwise dampen Warner’s effect.
There’s lots more to discuss, but I don’t think there’s anyone I’d like better as President than Mark Warner. He’ s more conservative than I am, but the thing is, I’m not unhappy about having a leader who’s positions are different from mine. I just want one that’s good at their job and not a DICK about different positions. Warner at least plays like he cares and appreciates the fact that not everyone agrees with him: he isn’t going to ride roughshod or carelessly over objections like Bush has and like I expect Hillary would (creating more Dem/Rep hatred and backlashes and fighting). His attitude won’t be “I won, so fuck you everyone who didn’t vote for me, I do what I want.” That’s what this country needs after the Bush era of partisan screeching.
Oh, and that money thing? Well, Warner has so far dropped a LOT of cash on politicians running in 2006. He’s making some good friends in the right places.
**Apos **: You should let him know how good you are at campaigning for him.
That was an impressive post. He’s sounds better than any Dem I have seen put forth so far.
Jim
Wilson and Duekmejian were both pre-prop 187 Governors. The Republicans are linked in CA with being anti-illegal immigrants. I can’t imagine a Republican who will carry California.
I can’t imagine a Democrat who could even compete in Texas.
Apos , you certainly paint an attractive picture of Mark Warner. (Unlike that cover picture. Until the discussion here of the “photo,” I was convinced it was a cruel charicature.) Regardless, I wouldn’t be opposed to his candidacy, and he would certainly insipire less hatred in moderate voters than Hillary.
When people say that he hasn’t taken a stand on major Democratic issues, does that mean that he hasn’t come out in support of Roe v. Wade? How has he dealt with gun control as a governor of a red state? Has he made statements about racial profiling and executive overreaching in the war on terror? I understand that it will be important for him not to have to defend old, possibly indefensible positions, but he’ll have to take some stands at some point not that far down the road. Has he planted any seeds on this issues or is he going to be a follower on important social issues?
From the NYT magazine article about warner:
Ouch!
On guns, you’re not going to find any traction for further restrictions. The best one can say is that he hasn’t championed concealed carry laws, and he’s defended laws that ban guns from places where alcohol is served (billed as a protection for police that have to show up break up to drunken fights). The NRA stayed somewhat neutral in the 2001 governor’s race because of his moderate stance, but he’s not going to excite anyone on either side of that issue.
On abortion, there’s really not much doing outside the standard Dem line: from his 2001 campaign. He vetoed a number of ultra-conservative bills from the VA house, but I think they sustained the vetoes anyway:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Mark_Warner_Abortion.htm
Well, heck here’s their whole take:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Warner.htm
One thing that will get Warner in trouble with the left is that he is very pro-business. He rephrases many conventional Democratic issues in terms of why they are good for businesses (and hence jobs, hence healthcare, etc.) That’s not going to endear him to anti-Walmart types.
All in all, Warner has been very cautious and measured. He’s built his career in Virginia on emphasizing action and policy over firey rhetoric. We’ll just have to see what he’ll play on the national stage.